Every American is a socialist.

Will you drink tap water today? You are a socialist.

Will you use indoor plumbing? You are a socialist.

Will you use a public road? You are a socialist.

Do you have a mailbox? You are a socialist.

Do you rely on the fire department? You are a socialist.

Do you believe in Social Security? You are a socialist.

Do you believe in Medicare? You are a socialist.

Republicans for Bernie Sanders.

Seriously. It's a thing.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/23/1395700/-Republicans-for-Bernie-Sanders

To distinguish between terroristic acts on the basis of skin color is the essence of racism.

I am old enough to remember in the 60s when perpetrators of crime would separately be identified as being black, but white perpetrators would not be identified by race. The implicit message was not only the reinforcement of the stereotype of black people as criminals, but also something subtler. The idea that an American who happened to be black was somehow “other,” not a standard American. Whereas of course, so the implication went, white Americans are normal and standard. Eventually that practice stopped because people called it out and editors were finally persuaded that it was at the very least not “objective” journalism if not downright racist.

Flash forward to the time when Islam entered the popular American consciousness in a big way: the Iranian hostage taking of 1979. Muslims since then, especially since 9-11, have been the targets of another form of prejudice, and the bad actors such as Islamists, Wahabists, etc., have rightly been labelled terrorists.

But the term terrorism has rarely been applied to anything any white people do, at least in American journalism. Perhaps that term has been used in conjunction with Northern Ireland. But if you apply it to the bombing of a black church in Birmingham in 1963, that is the exception proving the rule.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/four-black-schoolgirls-killed-in-birmingham

I submit that this lack of the application of the term “terrorism” to these acts, performed for the purpose of extending Jim Crow, among other purposes, is because the perpetrators were white. To me this is the height of racism. White people have been performing acts of terror on this continent for 500 years, primarily to red and black people. It is time we came to grips with a national history filled with terrorism.

Finally, now, the term terrorism is finally be applied to the recent tragedy in Charleston. At last. Maybe then we won’t be so eager, as is Bill Maher, to be pointing the finger at Islam. As the cartoon character Pogo once said, “we have met the enemy and he is us.”

Are we facing the end of history? Or even human extinction?

Do you believe climate change is a threat sufficient to cause the end of history? To cause the extinction of homo sapiens? How much do you feel that you know about climate change?

I don’t want to claim that we can’t survive the loss of many, many species. We’ve already proved that we actually can. We’re very adaptable. But I think the bottom line is, you wouldn’t want to find out.

There are two questions that arise: One is, OK, just because we’ve survived the loss of X number of species, can we keep going down the same trajectory, or do we eventually imperil the systems that keep people alive? That’s a very big and incredibly serious question.

And then there’s another question. Even if we can survive, is that the world you want to live in? Is that the world you want all future generations of humans to live in? That’s a different question. But they’re both extremely serious. I would say they really couldn’t be more serious.

Bernie 2.0 starts today.

Bernie 2.0 starts today but don’t blink or you’ll miss him. What was Bernie 0.0? The undeclared senator who couldn’t get much oxygen because of the Draft Elizabeth Warren movement, which had money and bodies and field offices in New Hampshire, etc. Then Bernie 1.0 was introduced on April 30 when he announced his candidacy for president. This news was largely ignored with just a few titters from the nattering nabobs of Sunday morning talk. He was the fringe candidate who had no chance. But people gave money and started coming to hear him in droves.

Now in less than two months, the new, politically inconvenient Bernie 2.0 has been launched. Most of the general public is still not paying attention, of course, but the chattering class is reluctantly changing memes. Who launched Bernie 2.0? Why, none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton, who yesterday placed a surrogate on Sunday morning to dampen expectations for Hillary and concede that Bernie could win Iowa and New Hampshire (see video link below).

The scornfest will continue because that’s what beltway pundits do with their ignorance. So Bernie Sanders’ middle name on Sunday morning shows will continue to be “self-described-socialist.” But new firewall memes will have to be developed when Bernie 3.0 emerges: the candidate tied with or leading Hillary in Iowa and New Hampshire. Based on his burgeoning momentum and those amazing rallies, don’t blink or you’ll miss Bernie 2.0.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=uNKOlSTUg-8

[link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=uNKOlSTUg-8|

Hillary preparing to lose Iowa, NH.

It's called firewalling. Bernie is gaining so fast in the big two first states that the Clinton campaign is trying to dampen expectations. So today we are seeing the rationale that HRC will win in bigger states with more diversity. In 2008 her campaign underperformed early and suddenly she started losing support in bigger states as well, particularly among black voters. Hard to say whether history will repeat itself, but Clinton's advisers were busy with inoculating talking points today (see link below).

1. Bernie Sanders has no roots in the Democratic Party; and

2. He can't connect with minority voters.

The first point is partially true, he has been known as an independent rather than a Democrat during his political career. But he has caucused with and voted with the Democrats (at least when they were voting like traditional Democrats, which has been less and less over the years). And establishment Democrats at the national level are not as honorable as they used to be in the sense that money has never been more corrupting in my lifetime.

The second point will be proved false in my view. Bernie Sanders is the only "real" candidate in this election on either side. What do I mean by that? He says what he means all the time and he is not packaged by focus groups or handlers in his presentation. Secondly, he is a real person. Unlike the other candidates he is not filthy rich, because he doesn't have a Super Pac, a corrupt foundation or million dollar weddings in his family. His lifestyle and perspective is more like ours rather than the 1%.

Bernie has never engaged in "dog whistle" politics. Like Barack Obama and Al Gore, he has taken the high road in every campaign, so I think all primary voters, from all walks of life, will like him more and more as they get to know that he is truly about fighting for social and economic justice for them and will not sell out for Wall Street or send our young people off to die in a foreign country. And he will fight for our survival as a people, by putting Americans to work at green jobs to fight climate change. So that our grand children can survive to see the 22nd century.

So I am hoping the firewall doesn't hold.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/dem-strategist-we-shouldnt-be-surprised-if-sanders-beats-clinton-in-iowa-and-new-hampshire/

Bernie takes down Donald Trump!

Bernie uses Neil Young's song *with* his permission!

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/21/bernie-sanders-takes-donald-trump-neil-youngs-music-billionaire-thief.html

A plea to Bernie Sanders supporters.

The purpose of this post is to caution Bernie Sanders’ supporters on DU to show respect to those with whom you disagree. Let me preface this by saying I’m a white man, an avid supporter of Bernie and guilty of about everything I shall mention. I’ve had posts “hidden,” and although in most cases I disagreed with the decision, there was probably some underlying hostility beneath my coldly polite posts. So, mea culpa. I am not accusing any specific individuals, but I have seen Bernie-backer posts that were, imo, arrogant, hostile and failing to attempt to see the other person’s point of view. That’s why I am raising the issue.

Let’s review the bidding. In election cycles, Duers back different candidates, get tribal and many get nasty. Also, President Obama has been the object of considerable controversy, since maybe 2010 and so we have the overlap of that residual controversy and a nascent presidential election cycle. In addition, our candidate comes from a rural, lily-white state:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-02-10-vermont-census_N.htm

This is reminiscent of the Howard Dean candidacy, a Vermont governor with a high score from the NRA and not much black support, at least in my experience. Other “insurgent” candidates with disproportionately white support were John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992, 96 and perhaps Ralph Nader in 2000. I have no data for any of this, it’s all based on my memories and perception.

Now here is my main point. I think we have a real shot to win the nomination. Bernie has a lot of momentum and is closing in the polls. If we get the nomination, anything is possible because historically the election after a two-term president is usually close. Bernie could end up in the White House, much crazier things have happened.

Now here is Bernie’s main point: winning the election is not the end of the people’s involvement. He says he can’t get his program passed without, and I quote “a revolution.” He is calling for a million young people to march on Washington and millions more to get involved all over the country. I think of it as the Occupy movement (which was multi-racial!) on steroids. He wants the people to take back this country from the oligarchs.

So getting the nomination will be fantastic, but it will only be the beginning. Bill Clinton said in the primaries you fall in love, but in the general election you fall in line. We cannot burn bridges which will hinder people from backing Bernie when we win the nomination. We will need Hillary backers of all walks of life and especially all races.

So when gender, race, class, etc. is an issue with an adverse poster in a thread on DU, *please* be more than civil, be kind and make a real attempt to reach out. Don’t be stubborn, that person is not your enemy but another 99%er with a unique story and perspective. Lest I sound preachy, I admit this advice is definitely for me as well.

It’s already hot out there and it’s gonna get a lot hotter. We’ll make mistakes. Some of us (including me!) may get posts hidden, etc. Debate is necessary in this cycle. By all means let's be vigorous about it. But if we try to act out of love and remember the nobility of this cause, just maybe we can elect a transformative president.

We, Bernie and the pendulum.

Is the pendulum of American history reversing course? Far too early to say, but American presidents have often been reflective of those changes, e.g. Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Reagan. Each was truly transformative in his own way (perhaps Jefferson also because of the Louisiana Purchase, etc.).

Because of wealth inequality, pitting people against each other with racism and the other “isms” and all the other ugly aspects of billionaire control, the American people may be ready for that pendulum to reverse.

Bernie Sanders’ election could be necessary but it is certainly not sufficient to effect that change. The thing I find most exciting about his campaign is that he has a clear vision of a mass movement of people (a “revolution” he calls it) to do the legwork to effect transformative change. This is how he can get his agenda passed, by massive organizing and action.

Check out the linked video interview at about 19 minutes in (or precisely 19:38 remaining). Katie Couric asks him how he can overcome McConnell, Boehner, etc., and actually get Congress to enact his programs if he is elected. His response? He calls for millions to get actively involved and for a million young people to march on Washington!

[link:https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-talks-to-katie-couric-bernie-120458581061.html]

I believe there are millions more people willing to participate in such a movement than was the case for the astro-turf Tea Party. Because of the Koch brothers' and Fox News' assistance that little astro-turf group was transmogrified into the most dynamic political movement in the US since the emergence of the New Left during the Viet Nam/civil rights era. Look how much power they have garnered by passion, without great numbers.

I believe Bernie can win the nomination and the general election, but that is just the beginning. Bringing an end to the Age of Reagan won’t take 100 million people in the streets. It might not even take ten million. But it will require millions of energized people and passion and commitment. That is what Bernie could catalyze. He is asking for a million young people to march on Washington and demand change on behalf of the people. Maybe it should be called “BernStock” or “Occupy on Steroids,” I don’t know. But I do know that a march on Washington by a million young people would be a damn good start. We have a selfless leader who is putting himself out there for us. But there are no saviors, we must save ourselves. The lesson of history is that the pendulum does not change of its own accord.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-talks-to-katie-couric-bernie-120458581061.html

OK, Bernie, I give up.

I have looked at three presidential hopefuls for 2016: 1) Elizabeth Warren; 2) Martin O’Malley; and 3) Bernie Sanders (Hillary is right out for obvious reasons if you research fracking, TPP, Wall Street coziness and the Iraq War Resolution for starters). The first three potential candidates are acceptable to me even though each one has warts (as does every politician I have ever studied).

Elizabeth Warren is not running and I do not believe the American electorate is sophisticated enough to respond to a draft movement. Martin O’Malley is running and has the potential to be a great president. I gravitated toward him a couple of months ago and considered supporting him for the long haul, but his decision to wait to declare at the end of May was a strategic blunder. Bernie Sanders has gained momentum since entering the race and is starting to garner some positive press.

Initially I shied away from Bernie because I believed in the political “expert” perspective: Sanders cannot win the nomination and even if he could, he couldn’t win the general election. Here is my list of original reasons for rejection and my current thinking:
1) He’s old;
2) He’s funny looking and has a funny accent;
3) He’s Jewish;
4) He’s not the right physical type for the TV age; and
5) His socialist ideas are too radical.

Bernie is 73 years old, so he’s no spring chicken. Reagan was 69 when he first ran. Bernie is much more vigorous than Reagan and in terms of gerontological progress, the age of 74 today is perhaps relatively younger than 69 in 1980, when Reagan was running.

Bernie sounds and looks funny to many people I suppose, but I don’t think that is a show stopper for being taken seriously. Ross Perot sounded and looked much funnier than Bernie, but until Perot started acting crazy in the 1992 campaign, it seemed likely that he would win the election (he was ahead in the polls until his meltdown).

He is Jewish, but after a black president and viable women candidates, is this a big deal? I don’t think so.

In anthropological terms, Bernie may be what’s called an endomorph. He doesn’t look like the mesomorphs commonly elected (e.g. Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama). However George W. Bush is a little short by presidential standards, and also see the comments above about Ross Perot.

So it all comes down to his “radical” political beliefs. Bernie is a self-described social democrat, favoring the policies of Scandanavian countries. What’s radical about it is that it is largely the way American policies were headed before Ronald Reagan. Northern Europe provides college education for whoever wants it, without any cost. Everyone is guaranteed adequate food, clothing and shelter. Medical care is free. They can do this because they do not try to police the world and the rich and corporations are required to pay their fair share.

Except for health care, America did most of this before Reagan and still had enough wealth left over to engage in a very expensive cold war. Scandanavian health care costs less than half per capita compared to American health care. They insure everybody, while we have tens of thousands who die every year because of a lack of health care. His radical idea is to tax the rich and return to the values which gave America the largest, most robust middle class in the world.

Bernie’s other radical idea is that he believes in science. Scientists tell us climate change is our greatest threat and we need to get serious about it.

Bernie is gaining momentum because he is telling the truth and people are listening to him, another old-fashioned, radical idea. They are not reacting to his “image.” He walks the talk. He has fought his whole life for the 99%. Because of Reagan and the morons who have followed him, wealth inequality is at its worst level in history, rivaled only by the end of the Gilded Age. Americans have become “radical” because they have been layed off, pensions lost, homes foreclosed and no way to send kids to college. Meanwhile bankers not only don’t go to prison, their profits are bigger than ever. The American people have had enough and so have I. OK, Bernie, that’s it. I’m in.